"Andrea Stacchiotti via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> From: Andrea Stacchiotti <andreastacchiotti@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Using either the 1-arg or 2-args form of --force
> it is possible to only move one branch at a time,
> to HEAD and <arg2> respectively.
If you are renaming (or "moving") a branch that is not checked out
anywhere to a new name that is not in use, you do not even need to
force. You can just do:
git branch -m old new
You are not moving branches without "-m".
What you are doing is to point a branch A to point at a commit X
with
git branch A X
Your proposed log message talks about "--force" too much; if you are
creating a branch, you need "--force" only when the name you want to
use is already taken. Pointing the branch tip to a commit is not
inherently tied to "--force", but your description gives a false
impression that you are adding a special feature when "--force" is
used. The proposed log message needs rewritten.
If there is not yet a branch A, you do not even need "--force" on
this command line. Also take a special note that "X" does not have
to be a branch name. It only has to resolve to a commit, so this is
also valid:
git branch [--force] A X~4
I can understand that it may appear to be handy to be able to set
multiple branches at the same time with
git branch A X~4 B X~3 C X~2 (* does not exist *)
with or without "--force". If none of A, B, or C exist, they can be
created from these three comits X~4, X~3, and X~2.
Or you could propose a different syntax to create branches pointing
at the same commit
git branch A B C origin/master (* does not exist *)
But either syntax to create multiple branches feel somewhat
inadequate. What should happen to their associated configuration
data like branch.A.remote and branch.B.merge? Should they all point
at the same remote & a branch at the remote? How would that make
having multiple of them useful?
